What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A realist review

被引:157
|
作者
Husk, Kerryn [1 ]
Blockley, Kelly [2 ]
Lovell, Rebecca [3 ]
Bethel, Alison [2 ]
Lang, Iain [2 ]
Byng, Richard [1 ]
Garside, Ruth [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Plymouth, Fac Med & Dent, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula PenCLAHRC, Plymouth, Devon, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Coll Med & Hlth, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula PenCLAHRC, Exeter, Devon, England
[3] Univ Exeter, Coll Med & Hlth, European Ctr Environm & Human Hlth, Exeter, Devon, England
关键词
health services research; primary care; social and health services; EXERCISE-REFERRAL SCHEMES; PHYSICAL-ACTIVITY; SELF-DETERMINATION; GENERAL-PRACTICE; OLDER-PEOPLE; PRIMARY-CARE; PRESCRIPTION SCHEME; BUILT ENVIRONMENT; LEADER BEHAVIORS; GROUP COHESION;
D O I
10.1111/hsc.12839
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The use of non-medical referral, community referral or social prescribing interventions has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to help those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve health and well-being. However, the evidence base for social prescribing currently lags considerably behind practice. In this paper, we explore what is known about whether different methods of social prescribing referral and supported uptake do (or do not) work. Supported by an Expert Advisory Group, we conducted a realist review in two phases. The first identified evidence specifically relating to social prescribing in order to develop programme theories in the form of 'if-then' statements, articulating how social prescribing models are expected to work. In the second phase, we aimed to clarify these processes and include broader evidence to better explain the proposed mechanisms. The first phase resulted in 109 studies contributing to the synthesis, and the second phase 34. We generated 40 statements relating to organising principles of how the referral takes place (Enrolment), is accepted (Engagement), and completing an activity (Adherence). Six of these statements were prioritised using web-based nominal group technique by our Expert Group. Studies indicate that patients are more likely to enrol if they believe the social prescription will be of benefit, the referral is presented in an acceptable way that matches their needs and expectations, and concerns elicited and addressed appropriately by the referrer. Patients are more likely to engage if the activity is both accessible and transit to the first session supported. Adherence to activity programmes can be impacted through having an activity leader who is skilled and knowledgeable or through changes in the patient's conditions or symptoms. However, the evidence base is not sufficiently developed methodologically for us to make any general inferences about effectiveness of particular models or approaches.
引用
收藏
页码:309 / 324
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A protocol for a realist review
    Husk K.
    Blockley K.
    Lovell R.
    Bethel A.
    Bloomfield D.
    Warber S.
    Pearson M.
    Lang I.
    Byng R.
    Garside R.
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1)
  • [2] Care Planning: What Works, for Whom, and in What Circumstances? A Rapid Realist Review
    Brown, Sarah
    Lhussier, Monique
    Dalkin, Sonia M.
    Eaton, Simon
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2018, 28 (14) : 2250 - 2266
  • [3] Complex interventions: What works, for whom, and in what circumstances? A rapid realist review
    Naughton, Stephen
    Rapaport, Penny
    Ali, Afia
    Elahi, Farah
    Lahab, Maria
    Hassiotis, Angela
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, 2021, 34 (05) : 1330 - 1330
  • [4] A realist review of shared medical appointments: How, for whom, and under what circumstances do they work?
    Kirsh, Susan R.
    Aron, David C.
    Johnson, Kimberly D.
    Santurri, Laura E.
    Stevenson, Lauren D.
    Jones, Katherine R.
    Jagosh, Justin
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2017, 17
  • [5] A realist review of shared medical appointments: How, for whom, and under what circumstances do they work?
    Susan R. Kirsh
    David C. Aron
    Kimberly D. Johnson
    Laura E. Santurri
    Lauren D. Stevenson
    Katherine R. Jones
    Justin Jagosh
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 17
  • [6] Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances
    Geoff Wong
    Trisha Greenhalgh
    Ray Pawson
    [J]. BMC Medical Education, 10
  • [7] Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances
    Wong, Geoff
    Greenhalgh, Trisha
    Pawson, Ray
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2010, 10
  • [8] Countering Violent Extremism: A Realist Review for Assessing What Works, for Whom, in What Circumstances, and How?
    Gielen, Amy-Jane
    [J]. TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE, 2019, 31 (06) : 1149 - 1167
  • [9] What aspects of intentional rounding work in hospital wards, for whom and in what circumstances? A realist evaluation protocol
    Harris, Ruth
    Sims, Sarah
    Levenson, Ros
    Gourlay, Stephen
    Ross, Fiona
    Davies, Nigel
    Brearley, Sally
    Favato, Giampiero
    Grant, Robert
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (01):
  • [10] Implement social prescribing successfully towards embedding: what works, for whom and in which context? A rapid realist review
    Bos, C.
    de Weger, E.
    Wildeman, I.
    Pannebakker, N.
    Kemper, P. F.
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01)